6 ms·

There are a lot of assholes on the internet, but in general I'm unwilling to hastily put limits on freedom of speech, even when those assholes use it to be assh

by IvyMike 12y ago

There are a lot of assholes on the internet, but in general I'm unwilling to hastily put limits on freedom of speech, even when those assholes use it to be assholes. I am not sure what people are asking for: Do they want reddit to start censoring more stuff? That can quickly become a slippery slope. Do they want reddit to break DMCA laws? That's not going to happen. Do they want reddit to fall on its sword and censor nothing even if it means the demonization of reddit? Probably a bad idea too. On another note, I mostly use reddit to read /r/cpp, /r/netsec, /r/Iceland, /r/hiphopheads, /r/bourbon (and friends), /r/LosAngeles, and a collection of other interest specific subreddits. I barely noticed the recent shenanigans. When an article attempts to paint reddit as "being filled with [insert broad brush here]" I always cringe; any large site cuts across most demographics. It's filled with the same type of people who use the internet; that is, the same that are walking around in your city right now. It's filled with everyone.

B-Con 12y ago
Niche subreddits can actually be fantastic. I'm subscribed to many related to my personal hobbies and interests, and in general the content and conduct is reasonable. In contrast, most of the mainstream ones that are worth avoiding, with the exception of /r/askscience.
jacquesm 12y ago
Your freedom of speech is not a right on private websites and a site like Reddit could easily have curbed this thread without any damage to anybody's feelings and a significant reduction in the potential harm to the victims of these hacks. Imagine a HN thread about how and where you can download pirated copies of software you wrote or something similar. Do you feel that shutting that down would inhibit your freedom of speech somehow?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- RubyPinch 12y ago
  @ free speech in relation to reddit > We uphold the ideal of free speech on reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to, but because we believe that you - the user - has the right to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, and that it is your responsibility to do so. When you know something is right, you should choose to do it. But as much as possible, we will not force you to do it. from the recent blog-post: http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-f...
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    That's why we have courts and such, so that victims can seek redress of crimes and if you facilitate such crimes then you'll be likely named a co-defendant. You can't 'on principle' opt-out of the law and making yourself a vehicle for crimes on the argument that you give your users the right to choose between right and wrong will likely not go down very well in court. Once you have been made aware that a part of your infrastructure is being used to perpetrate something illegal then you should act. If you don't then you will carry some liability.
    - danudey 12y ago
      The best that Reddit could (typically) do is claim ignorance, but in this case it's obvious (through what they've said in their blog post, as well as the assumption that they would notice such a fast-growing traffic source) that they knew full well what was going on and chose to do nothing. I honestly hope that Reddit gets sued for this, and loses, badly. I love the site for the communities I'm a part of, but as long as they have this attitude of 'I didn't do it, so it's not my problem', things are only going to get worse.
- IvyMike 12y ago
  > Your freedom of speech is not a right on private websites Do we think that the principle of freedom of speech is a good thing? And if so, shouldn't we attempt to make it available even in situations in which we are not compelled by law? HN takes a very active role in curating discussions, and PG has made it clear why--HN serves a very specific purpose and needs to be kept on track. Reddit, on the other hand, seeks to be the "digital commons", and a broad allowance for speech is appropriate there.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Well, apparently the digital commons ends where the risk of impending lawsuits affects the bottom line. So much for that principle.
    - IvyMike 12y ago
      Is failing to comply with the DMCA and taking grave financial harm a reasonable thing for them to do? I cannot see how that would work.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Indeed it isn't and so you can conclude that websites operate within a triangle of desires, laws and economics. If you try to transcend any of the three one of the other two will bite you.
  - danudey 12y ago
    Your rights end at the point where you're causing harm to others. All freedoms, including freedom of speech, need to have limits or the strong and privileged will run roughshod over the weak or incapable. If you're arguing that we should protect the freedom of speech of people who went ridiculously far out of their way to continue to share illegally obtained, private pictures, and then blame the victims for everything that's happened to them, I can't agree.
  - minikites 12y ago
    So then why does Reddit censor some information: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/16/3514232/reddit-ceo-yishan-wong-leak-memo-violentacrez-doxxing-ban http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/16/3514232/reddit-ceo-yishan... > Last week, that very same Gawker unmasked one of Reddit's most unsavory trolls, posting his real identity for all to see. Allegedly, it cost Violentacrez his job. For Reddit, the stories were serious offenses: the site does not permit posting the personal information of its users (aka "doxxing"). However, Reddit's moderators took the rules a step further, attempting a site-wide ban against the Gawker network, and banning a user and even one fellow moderator who spoke out against such practices. but not take down the private celebrity photos?

by IvyMike 12y ago

B-Con 12y ago

Niche subreddits can actually be fantastic. I'm subscribed to many related to my personal hobbies and interests, and in general the content and conduct is reasonable. In contrast, most of the mainstream ones that are worth avoiding, with the exception of /r/askscience.

jacquesm 12y ago

Your freedom of speech is not a right on private websites and a site like Reddit could easily have curbed this thread without any damage to anybody's feelings and a significant reduction in the potential harm to the victims of these hacks. Imagine a HN thread about how and where you can download pirated copies of software you wrote or something similar. Do you feel that shutting that down would inhibit your freedom of speech somehow?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
RubyPinch 12y ago
@ free speech in relation to reddit > We uphold the ideal of free speech on reddit as much as possible not because we are legally bound to, but because we believe that you - the user - has the right to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, and that it is your responsibility to do so. When you know something is right, you should choose to do it. But as much as possible, we will not force you to do it. from the recent blog-post: http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-for-his-own.html http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/every-man-is-responsible-f...
- jacquesm 12y ago
  That's why we have courts and such, so that victims can seek redress of crimes and if you facilitate such crimes then you'll be likely named a co-defendant. You can't 'on principle' opt-out of the law and making yourself a vehicle for crimes on the argument that you give your users the right to choose between right and wrong will likely not go down very well in court. Once you have been made aware that a part of your infrastructure is being used to perpetrate something illegal then you should act. If you don't then you will carry some liability.
  - danudey 12y ago
    The best that Reddit could (typically) do is claim ignorance, but in this case it's obvious (through what they've said in their blog post, as well as the assumption that they would notice such a fast-growing traffic source) that they knew full well what was going on and chose to do nothing. I honestly hope that Reddit gets sued for this, and loses, badly. I love the site for the communities I'm a part of, but as long as they have this attitude of 'I didn't do it, so it's not my problem', things are only going to get worse.
IvyMike 12y ago
> Your freedom of speech is not a right on private websites Do we think that the principle of freedom of speech is a good thing? And if so, shouldn't we attempt to make it available even in situations in which we are not compelled by law? HN takes a very active role in curating discussions, and PG has made it clear why--HN serves a very specific purpose and needs to be kept on track. Reddit, on the other hand, seeks to be the "digital commons", and a broad allowance for speech is appropriate there.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Well, apparently the digital commons ends where the risk of impending lawsuits affects the bottom line. So much for that principle.
  - IvyMike 12y ago
    Is failing to comply with the DMCA and taking grave financial harm a reasonable thing for them to do? I cannot see how that would work.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Indeed it isn't and so you can conclude that websites operate within a triangle of desires, laws and economics. If you try to transcend any of the three one of the other two will bite you.
- danudey 12y ago
  Your rights end at the point where you're causing harm to others. All freedoms, including freedom of speech, need to have limits or the strong and privileged will run roughshod over the weak or incapable. If you're arguing that we should protect the freedom of speech of people who went ridiculously far out of their way to continue to share illegally obtained, private pictures, and then blame the victims for everything that's happened to them, I can't agree.
- minikites 12y ago
  So then why does Reddit censor some information: http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/16/3514232/reddit-ceo-yishan-wong-leak-memo-violentacrez-doxxing-ban http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/16/3514232/reddit-ceo-yishan... > Last week, that very same Gawker unmasked one of Reddit's most unsavory trolls, posting his real identity for all to see. Allegedly, it cost Violentacrez his job. For Reddit, the stories were serious offenses: the site does not permit posting the personal information of its users (aka "doxxing"). However, Reddit's moderators took the rules a step further, attempting a site-wide ban against the Gawker network, and banning a user and even one fellow moderator who spoke out against such practices. but not take down the private celebrity photos?